D&D General How much control do DMs need?

[pemerton]

That's because "making suggestions to the GM" could be considered reductive.

Whereas suggesting that the purpose of all those mechanics is to create suspense between declaration of action and narration of consequence is not?

 

[Oofta]

This claim is true of 5e D&D. It's false of DW.

What you say here may be true of %e D&D: the GM can set a "puzzle" that requires the players to make checks of different degrees of difficulty.

I would note that 5e D&D has no clear rules for what happens if the wizard tries to cross the chasm on a rope. Is this auto-success? A chance of failure? If the latter, is the check on DEX or on STR? If on DEX, does Acrobatics help?

DungeonWorld does not have any way in which the GM can set up a puzzle of the sort you describe. Any more than go has a way of moving the pieces once played. Your attempt to insist that they're the same except D&D has more options is just false. 5e D&D has no way of doing what DW permits in this scenario.

If I'm describing a fictional environment, I may have a chasm in a tunnel. Maybe it's just set decoration setting the mood. Maybe it has some purpose other than being an obstacle such as monsters crawling out of it after the group passes. In either case crossing is not an issue. On the other hand perhaps there's a potential risk to crossing. Possibly it can't be crossed at all so the group has to find an alternate route. None of these options has anything to do with the game system.

D&D has greater fidelity on how to handle this if there is potential risk. Some PCs may be able to automatically cross, others have no chance of crossing by jumping, some might be able to jump across. If the barbarian runs a rope across that the wizard is trying to cross with then as a DM I'll ask for details on the setup. It will typically be an acrobatics check but perhaps we add the complication of having an additional rope tied around the wizard in case they fall. Maybe the wizard just says the heck with it and burns a resource to cast a spell to get across. This is all pretty straightforward ability checks and problem solving.

In DW jumping across the chasm was given in another post as an example of how the check being made is not a simple pass/fail. However there seems to be little to no correlation to the physical capabilities of the individuals. Assuming of course that characters in DW can, indeed, jump.

Neither approach is inherently better, I prefer D&D's handling of it.

 

[pemerton]

In DW jumping across the chasm was given in another post as an example of how the check being made is not a simple pass/fail. However there seems to be little to no correlation to the physical capabilities of the individuals.

Really? You think that check STR (Athletics) is somehow correlated to the physical capabilities of the individual in a way that Defy Danger (STR) is not?

Are you going to explain that?

If I'm describing a fictional environment, I may have a chasm in a tunnel.

<snip>

D&D has greater fidelity on how to handle this if there is potential risk.

How would Dungeon World handle it, such that "lower fidelity" is demonstrated?

How would D&D handle the risk of slipping on a patch of loose earth just at the moment of launching oneself into the air?

EDIT: I think it's obvious that 99% of the time D&D doesn't handle that risk. Likewise it has no rule for handling the chance of sneezing just as one wants to recite the litany to a ritual.

And I also get the strong impression that you (Oofta) don't have a strong grasp on how DW would handle it.

The two games are very different. The mere fact that you begin "(, the GM, am describing a fictional environment" already shows that you are thinking in5e D&D terms but not DW terms. DW doesn't begin with "describe a fictional environment". The focus of play is not on grasping and engaging a fiction that has been imagined by the GM.

Whether that is a plus or a minus about DW compared to 5e D&D is a matter of taste. But why are you trying to deny the difference? I don't get it - especially in a thread which is all about different roles for and degrees of GM control in RPGing.

 

[AnotherGuy]

For my part, yes it is a shortcoming because I have zero interest in RPGing where the GM is almost all of the game.

So let's take this chasm as an example.
The DM has introduced it as an obstacle which the PCs must overcome to get to their destination but the PCs have a variety of methods to overcome such obstable.
In @Manbearcat's story now, no myth play-by-post here with two other forum members (@darkbard and @Nephis), the very first scenario presents an obstacle whereby the characters need to convince/intimidate etc the appropriate persons in order to enter a temple. A skill challenge is enacted.
How are these situations different?

EDIT: The Slave and Her Sovereign

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This claim is true of 5e D&D. It's false of DW.

What you say here may be true of %e D&D: the GM can set a "puzzle" that requires the players to make checks of different degrees of difficulty.

I would note that 5e D&D has no clear rules for what happens if the wizard tries to cross the chasm on a rope. Is this auto-success? A chance of failure? If the latter, is the check on DEX or on STR? If on DEX, does Acrobatics help?

DungeonWorld does not have any way in which the GM can set up a puzzle of the sort you describe. Any more than go has a way of moving the pieces once played. Your attempt to insist that they're the same except D&D has more options is just false. 5e D&D has no way of doing what DW permits in this scenario.

I would say it like this: You can handle the whole "how do we cross the Chasm" thing in detail in Dungeon World, you simply ZOOM IN. Instead of just presenting the chasm as a single obstacle that the party has to overcome, you treat each step of setting up ropes and pitons and whatever it is that is required, as specific challenges that have to be overcome, or at least require some sort of action to be described by a PC (IE I pull a spike out of my backpack and expend it). Alternately the GM could let the whole party nominate someone to make a (probably Defy Danger) check to successfully get everyone across without mishap. Interestingly, it doesn't really matter in terms of the play of the game. Technically if the players are having fun, they can focus all their energy for an entire session on that danged chasm and deal with move after move! Or if they go on with one throw of the dice, they will simply come to some other danger that challenges them.

In this sense DW can really vary its pacing and things quite a lot. This is a dimension of flexibility that is very hard to accomplish with a game like 5e D&D that focuses on specific rules constructs and situations. I mean, maybe you CAN do it in 5e "make a survival skill check to cross the Great Desert!" but it seems less natural to me.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

For my part, yes it is a shortcoming because I have zero interest in RPGing where the GM is almost all of the game.

But my point in the post you quoted was (i) to point out that the relevant D&D rules or procedure had not been fully stated by @Oofta (ie "the wizard can use a rope" is set out there, but the actual process of resolution of this is elided), and (ii) to explain that D&D and DW don't work the same at all, and that in fact DW is not just a version of D&D with less attention to the details of chasm widths.

There is very little game time spent of "running the keep" in a logistical sense: occasionally the players perform calculations about how much gear they might be able to buy for their warband.

The castles and armies figure as elements in framing and resolution: the PCs attack them, defend them, persuade owners of them into "advantageous" marriages, etc.

Certainly strongholds were a KEY part of classic D&D play at higher levels. I mean, once you can see through walls, maybe teleport, cut holes in them, blast doors apart with your bare hands, etc. the basic dungeon crawl stuff is pretty much done. Certainly 9th level PCs should not find the dungeon environment challenging, so keeps and such are a way to add more dimensions. I expect the original idea is you would join the C&C Society minis campaign, your holding would show up on their map, and you'd fight minis battles with your army. At least in between adventures.

 

[niklinna]

I would say it like this: You can handle the whole "how do we cross the Chasm" thing in detail in Dungeon World, you simply ZOOM IN. Instead of just presenting the chasm as a single obstacle that the party has to overcome, you treat each step of setting up ropes and pitons and whatever it is that is required, as specific challenges that have to be overcome, or at least require some sort of action to be described by a PC (IE I pull a spike out of my backpack and expend it). Alternately the GM could let the whole party nominate someone to make a (probably Defy Danger) check to successfully get everyone across without mishap. Interestingly, it doesn't really matter in terms of the play of the game. Technically if the players are having fun, they can focus all their energy for an entire session on that danged chasm and deal with move after move! Or if they go on with one throw of the dice, they will simply come to some other danger that challenges them.

In this sense DW can really vary its pacing and things quite a lot. This is a dimension of flexibility that is very hard to accomplish with a game like 5e D&D that focuses on specific rules constructs and situations. I mean, maybe you CAN do it in 5e "make a survival skill check to cross the Great Desert!" but it seems less natural to me.

All of this. I was just reviewing a post I made on another thread, to clarify that Blades in the Dark is not just about heists—it easily covers the whole gamut of things a group of rascals or adventurers (or both) might want to do in any given setting. But beyond this, the resolution mechanic necessarily involves exploring and unfolding the fictional situation in some detail, in the moment, via a dialogue between GM and player(s) to establish Position and Effect (very roughly analagous to situational modifiers in other games), but also to know what's going on and what's at stake, both in terms of mechanics (stress/harm/heat/faction status/XP) and story (outcome/complications/who reacts how). Thus, when you pick up those dice, there is genuine tension and excitement on multiple dimensions.

With most trad games on the other hand, and in my experience, the resolution is usually along the lines of "roll a Perception a check" with the barest sketch of the situation, and the die roll holds all of the tension and excitement of, "Do I get to continue through the (usually prewritten) story or not?"

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

If I'm describing a fictional environment, I may have a chasm in a tunnel. Maybe it's just set decoration setting the mood. Maybe it has some purpose other than being an obstacle such as monsters crawling out of it after the group passes. In either case crossing is not an issue. On the other hand perhaps there's a potential risk to crossing. Possibly it can't be crossed at all so the group has to find an alternate route. None of these options has anything to do with the game system.

D&D has greater fidelity on how to handle this if there is potential risk. Some PCs may be able to automatically cross, others have no chance of crossing by jumping, some might be able to jump across. If the barbarian runs a rope across that the wizard is trying to cross with then as a DM I'll ask for details on the setup. It will typically be an acrobatics check but perhaps we add the complication of having an additional rope tied around the wizard in case they fall. Maybe the wizard just says the heck with it and burns a resource to cast a spell to get across. This is all pretty straightforward ability checks and problem solving.

In DW jumping across the chasm was given in another post as an example of how the check being made is not a simple pass/fail. However there seems to be little to no correlation to the physical capabilities of the individuals. Assuming of course that characters in DW can, indeed, jump.

Neither approach is inherently better, I prefer D&D's handling of it.

As I commented to @pemerton an minute ago, I can go into whatever detail I wish on the DW side and break down a situation into a whole set of actions and threats. I agree that DW doesn't have a formula for the distance you can jump, but it has STR and some special athletics moves for certain playbooks. So its quite possible the Barbarian can just leap across like a cat, and that the wizard will fall to his death on a 9 or less on 2d6! And the GM is perfectly free to frame it that way as "hey, STR 8 Wizard, you suck at jumping things, are you SURE you want to try to leap a wide and bottomless looking chasm?" My guess is the player will think twice!

And I can deploy the 'FKR defense' here too, which says its BETTER not to have such a rule! I'm not saying DW is built with that mindset, but if you like the idea of FKR, you should like DW! lol.

 

[niklinna]

Certainly strongholds were a KEY part of classic D&D play at higher levels. I mean, once you can see through walls, maybe teleport, cut holes in them, blast doors apart with your bare hands, etc. the basic dungeon crawl stuff is pretty much done. Certainly 9th level PCs should not find the dungeon environment challenging, so keeps and such are a way to add more dimensions. I expect the original idea is you would join the C&C Society minis campaign, your holding would show up on their map, and you'd fight minis battles with your army. At least in between adventures.

One opportunity I feel we really missed in our recent Blades in the Dark campaign was that we never had any action go down in our lair. It might have been interesting! The lair improvements and turf benefits all seem rather abstract and detached to me, outside of a few scores that went down at our vice den.

Edit: But then again we had a fair bit of activity involving the manor we grabbed from Lord Scurlock! It was our surrogate HQ. (Also fixed a typo.)

 

[niklinna]

As I commented to @pemerton an minute ago, I can go into whatever detail I wish on the DW side and break down a situation into a whole set of actions and threats. I agree that DW doesn't have a formula for the distance you can jump, but it has STR and some special athletics moves for certain playbooks. So its quite possible the Barbarian can just leap across like a cat, and that the wizard will fall to his death on a 9 or less on 2d6! And the GM is perfectly free to frame it that way as "hey, STR 8 Wizard, you suck at jumping things, are you SURE you want to try to leap a wide and bottomless looking chasm?" My guess is the player will think twice!

And I can deploy the 'FKR defense' here too, which says its BETTER not to have such a rule! I'm not saying DW is built with that mindset, but if you like the idea of FKR, you should like DW! lol.

Dungeon Wolrd doesn't need or care about a formula for the distance you can jump. The physical distance across a chasm, the dice of damage a weapon does, as @loverdrive has pointed out elsewhere, have almost nothing to do with whether the chasm represents a salient obstacle, or with how many blows with that sword it takes to kill a foe.